I don't know if you actually read the comment section, but here goes. I was in the US Army from 1977 to 1988 initially in the 1/75th Rgr Bn and then various airborne units. I finished out in the Rgr Dept as a RI. An injury took me out of the fight and the service. This little bio was to let you know that my entire time in was dedicated to fight against the Soviet threat, mainly the one anticipated in Europe and the horde flowing thru The Fulda Gap. The idea that A-10's could not operate in a non-permissive arena is a little skewed. At the point where T-62's, BMP's and other armored vehicles were pouring into Poland, the A-10 would have been deployed to counter the threat as they were designed to do. This would have been done without US air superiority. They would have taken losses, but they would have done their initial counter strikes and slowed the break thru.
They were expecting considerable losses of A-10s even then. Remember we were concerned that an overwhelming Soviet attack could result in us going nuclear, so throwing everything at them "hell for leather" to hopefully avoid the need to escalate to Pershing TBMs on Polish and CZ soil made perfect sense. That was why the system was designed as it was, with manual trim tabs on the ailerons (you can't manually operate the full size flaps) to help it limp back to friendly lines so at least the pilot could eject over friendly territory, hopefully.
Please stop sending every defense capability we have to Ukraine, This is stupid. Captured US weapons are on display in Red Square. Design details are being determined now and shared with everyone who hates us. Stop already, Americans have spent decades developing this equipment, it was a lot of hard work and even though some of this stuff is old, they are still the best. Every time we just give this stuff away we do damage to ourselves
Great video, and I know this is a pretty beaten hop if by now, but… I (a former A-10 squadron member) think real opportunities are being missed in online discussions and by the military regarding The A-10, particularly in Ukraine but elsewhere as well. Whether or not future aircraft might provide better options, right now, the A-10 has some potentially untapped uses-no gun, SDB’s or maverick’s required. The four inboard pylons of the A-10 can currently carry sixteen SDB’s. These could be swapped with switchblade 300’s or 600’s, with minimal effort. Due to the light weight of these weapons, all ten pylons (not counting the central 600 gallon drop tank mount or the wingtip AIM ones) could swapped out with up to forty switchblade 600’s (four per pylon) or (if the mounts were designed), one-hundred and sixty switchblade 300’s (sixteen per pylon). Removal of the GaU-8 could allow for an internal fuel store, drone control suite, EW/ECM or any other useful systems. Placing ARM missiles on two of the pylons could also counter/deter any vehicle mounted, radar SA systems and if the central pylon were modified could add a third ARM missile, electronic, com, camera, package, etc. SBD’s could also be included in this mix. Essentially, variable loading options per wing pylon could be: 16x300, 4x600, 4xSDB Mounting Starlink transmitters onboard the A-10 could allow each of these to be launched and directed by ground operators, freeing the pilot to fly. The up to forty minute loiter (slightly more perhaps if air launched) of the 600’s, alleviates the need for the A-10 to loiter near the frontline. If the SDB’s (GBU-39’s) could interchanged with the variants (current and future) of the British SPEAR munition-a size equivalent of the GBU-39, with multi sensor guidance, rocket boosted range and speed and variable payloads including EW and ARM-then the capabilities soar. Ukraine would have to make these adaptations happen but it would not require airframe redesigns (excepting, perhaps, messing with the GaU-8. The U.S. would need the typical planning committee and development stretches pushing it into the future, but Ukraine could push it. For a nation mounting frontline, unguided rocket attacks with Mil-8’s, this would be a far better choice. If adapted with the offensive changes I have suggested, a low altitude dash-in/loiter-out drone swarm launcher that can land a few miles away on a dirt field might be a real plus. I know it isn’t going to happen, but it sure could.
Sorry, but no US pilot has ever flown an A-10 in contested airspace but only in airspace where the ground based anti air has been thoroughly suppressed, and hostile air assets are essentially non existent. A-10's will last about as long in Ukraine as the Su-25's did. Which is to say, not very. Which is why Ukraine has specifically stated IT DOES NOT WANT A-10's. It stated that years ago. They DO NOT WANT THEM...... What about that statement can people not get through their heads? The Ukrainians do not want the A-10 for multiple reasons, and their low survivability in contested airspace is only one of those reasons. For example, has the high maintenance cost of those old airframes (all of them are over 25 years old now) escaped you? The LAST thing the Ukrainians need is a probably niche at best combat platform that costs an arm and a leg to keep flying for very little actual result. The only reason the A-10 has been able to operate as long as it has is because 1) the USAAF has always been able to gain and maintain at minimum the air superiority required for the A-10 to operate effectively. And 2) the US is one of the few places in the world that could afford to keep an ancient, expensive to maintain niche use aircraft in service. Ukraine can do NEITHER of those things. Which is why they do not want the A-10.
Yes these 50 year old aircraft could become drone trucks. OTOH pretty much any aircrsft can be adapted to the drone truck role without needing to maintain old airframes with capability not needed. The a-10 is done ffs
@@alganhar1if you think the A10 is expensive to operate you are sadly mistaken-its one of the cheapest per flight hour. The reason they don't want the A10 is they have farmers and tractors and a bradley or two.
Sounds a lot better than what they don't have. A-10s and decommissioned choppers would be the perfect combination with drones since we're not giving them enough tanks. Maybe the maintenance and training would be too time-consuming.
I wondered when the war started and all those Russian tanks were all in convoy why Ukraine didn't ask for the A10, of course I didn't think about pilots not being able to fly them straight away, well explained as usual Wes. Slava Ukraini. 💙💛
Yes, and complete air superiority also means the other guys don't have shoulder launched AA missile systems. But these days, everyone has these in abundance making close air support a suicide mission.
In the real world the A-10 was not meant to survive the inter-German border combat zone of WWIII. It was meant to do a maximum of damage before being shot down or destroyed on the apron. Pilots of the time would invoke the excellent nature of the ejection seat. Transferring them Ukraine would put them into the action environment they were designed for. If the A-10's ended their life operating deep in the former Soviet Union in the fight to prevent the reformation of the USSR the designers would rest well in their graves.
The Russians operate the equivalent of the A10 - the SU25 "Frogfoot" - in their "SMO", as do the Ukraines I believe. Sure, they're taking losses from manpads, but, evidently the combatants consider the SU25 has a role to play in this conflict and thus, must consider the current rate of losses - in aircraft and pilots - as acceptable for the time being. The US could give the Ukrainians the A10, to make up the loss of SU25s, but would Ukraine have sufficient pilots to fly them and could they spare them from frontline operations whilst they were trained to operate the A10?
Honestly, the US has hundreds of recently decommissioned Huey Super Cobras just sitting in the desert. They would probably be much more effective and faster training new chopper pilots than the more expensive program of maintaining a fleet of A-10's. Add to the fact that Ukraine is a high aerial threat environment. The Huey's can at least fly very low and slow when needed to avoid getting shot down.
@@Condor1970 In that combat environment they would be more vulnerable than the A-10. The Ukrainians are doing great with their drones and anti armor weapons.
@@tobiasrietveld3819 Well, I'm not going to say whether it's faster or not. I do know that Army helicopter school is total about 18 months from trainee to a pilot. A-10 school is previously qualified pilots then take additional 6 months or so to train on just the A-10. So, how long to become a pilot in the first place, I don't know. Also, helicopter pilots are often warrant officers as well, requiring less prior collegiate education. My only real point was that maintaining a fleet of Cobras is undoubtedly cheaper than the A-10's. Also, helicopters are something Ukraine probably would need and be able to use more effectively in larger numbers than a dozen or so A-10's. Ukraine does have a number of older Hind helicopters, but I would be pretty confident in saying Super Cobras would be a notable step up.
First of all, Ukraine is fighting mostly trench warfare, where both sides have plenty of anti air systems close by. Secondly setting a logistics for spare parts, service and training would be very complicated and expensive as this plane is not as spread across the world as F-16. So the cost to benefit would be absolutely terrible, as these planes would get blown out of the sky in large numbers very fast.
They don't want it. It was offered to Ukraine last year by the US. They declined the offer. CAS dedicated aircraft has proven a flying coffin in near peer combat. Ukraine has fewer pilots than aircraft and it can't afford to have them killed in A-10s. The SU-25 (russian A-10 equivalent) has the highest casualty rate of any aircraft for both sides. Ukraine mostly stopped using theirs as the casualty rate was too high compared to their MIGs. They simply cannot operate in a theater where air superiority hasn't been achieved, not without massive casualties (which is exactly what happened to both Russian and UA su-25s). The A-10 is fine when you're fighting terrorists with extremely poor equipment, but suicidal vs a well armed enemy with modern AA / SAM and ESPECIALLY modern Manpads.
It was designed to engage Russian armour at short notice but with predicted extremely high atriton rates so not suited for a long fight in contested air space.
I'd amend that to 'OLD, already purchased, dead-end programmes'. If there was a proper 1:1 replacement for the A-10 even in the conceptual stages, I'd bet they'd be dumping Warthogs onto Ozerne AB just to lubricate budget line-item approval for said 1:1 replacement. As it is, it seems like closest-analogue Eagle EX is already assured of orders anyway.
I'd argue that helping Ukraine achieve victory by donating them old equipment is a sure fire way of creating a potent customer for new western military technology in the very near future.
@davidgill3356 Oh, A10s were actually offered to the Ukrainians and they refused? I must have totally missed that in all the reports I've been following from the beginning of that conflict. Somehow I only caught the news about Australian junk F18s being offered and refused in the past...
The A10 is more a symbol of air power, not really something effective. Even in Desert storm; the majority of tank or other ground kills were not from A10's, but F111's with maverick missiles. In fact, a britisch SAS unit in it's tank was misstakely identified as a disguised enemy tank, and the A10 took 2 runs with it's cannon at it. Everybody was fine, and the tank drove on home.
If you’re going to comment at least know your facts….. the F-111’s flew at altitude and dropped laser guided bombs. They did not use maverick missiles. They would never get away with that in Ukraine. We lose an aircraft and everyone loses their mind. We lose two Bradley’s and we lose close to 20 soldiers and it’s “oh well.” A-10’s could operate in lower threat areas, especially to exploit break-throughs that don’t have anti-aircraft capabilities and/or troops are in serious trouble. Ukraine isn’t getting A-10’s but if we were in that war they would certainly be used.
Former USAF here, with the privilege of seeing these still fly daily around our city. To imply the aircraft (especially the 30mm system) is ineffective is disingenuous at best. During Desert storm, the platform took out more than 900 tanks/armored vehicles using a combination of the gun, missile and bombs. Not to mention two confirmed helicopter kills with the gun. Yes, it requires additional fighters to clear higher airspace however that was already understood way back during its development as a close air support platform.
A-10 was developed as a somewhat expendable tank killer during the Cold War. In it's current role it requires largely uncontested airspace to do its mission. Ukraine is definitely contested and you'd be using up a lot of planes, but more importantly, pilots.
The Ukrainians are afraid to send their fighters out just to get shot down by the Russian air defenses. We hear NOTHING about those "game changer" F-16 that were given to Ukraine a few months back. Because the are NOT game changers.
I read somewhere that in a hot war vs the Soviets, the US expected A-10 casualties to be high but acceptable due to the fact the US had a numerous supply of both airframes and pilots to absorb these losses somewhat. Ukraine simply wouldn't have that luxury as training would be long and limited to a handful of pilots and I would expect the number of airframes given to be quite low. Any A-10's wouldn't be used to their full effectiveness and would find themselves relegated to lobbing bombs/rockets much like the SU-25 is at which point you might as well purely use the SU-25 to simplify maintenance as supporting the A-10 would become a drain on resources for little benefit.
Best GI Joe toy I ever got as a kid! And watching this explained so much! Like how could replace parts with battle damaged versions! Just sold what remained of mine a few months ago 😫
The A10 warthog has recently gone through it's 6th upgrade since it's first model over 40 years ago. It's more deadly, efficient and modernized with new capabilities that still make it a very valuable part of both conventional and modern warfare, for the 21st century. The A10 worthog isn't going anywhere!
This has been already analyzed and talked about. The A10 won't make a difference in Ukraine. Is almost entirely useless, unless Ukraine achieves air superiority, it is almost useless, as much as its Soviet made counterpart, the Su 25. The only opportunity where it could've been used, was at the beginning of the invasion when the Russians were stuck in a large convoy. The war has changed and evolved.
There is another thing to consider. The age of the airframes and the fact they are out of production does not just mean its more difficult to get parts, but parts are going to break more often. The A-10's left are old, really old, and that means the cost to keep them maintained, even if parts were in ready supply, is also going to be very high. And its not just monetary costs I am talking about, its time costs. Just how many man hours are going to be required to keep those old birds flying? Sharply increasing maintenance costs is one of the reasons the USAAF wants to retire them! Lastly the war in Ukraine is NOT the one the A-10 was designed for. It LOOKS like the one it was designed for but its most certainly not. Why? Well most of the modern missile systems used by the Russians and Ukrainians simply did not exist when the aircraft was designed. The A-10 was designed for a completely different threat environment to the one faced by modern CAS aircraft in a peer on peer war. Its WHY the USAAF wants to shift to the F-35 in that role, because its low radar visibility means it can at least survive in a CAS environment on a modern battlefield without first requiring Air Supremacy! You may have doubts about whether the F-35 can fulfil a CAS role, and maybe they are justified to some extent, but the fact remains the F-35 is the best current option until a new dedicated CAS aircraft can be designed and brought into service, one designed to deal with modern or near future threat environments.
The A-10 would not survive in the skies over Ukraine. It can only operate in a permissive environment, like no enemy Ground to air missiles and fighter opposition.
Give the Ukrainians the option. Give the Ukrainians an honest assessment of the risks and the challenges, and they can decide if the benefits are worth the effort.
Yes, there seems to be a general consensus here that A10's wouldn't survive in Ukraine but very little real examination of what they would actually face there compared with what every other arm faces on a daily basis. For a start infantry regularly face prolonged artillery bombardments.
@@FairladyS130 They would actually face modern manpads and mobile AA batteries. WTF does infantry have to do with it? The lack of air superiority and inability to avoid air defenses make it a sitting duck.
@@davidgill3356 I assume that in operation they would be given a specified target so fast and low in and out. That's what the helios do but much slower. They would be gone before any AA could be reasonably effective.
It’s not the scarce ruzzian aircraft that would be the problem but the potential abundance of manpads that limits the use of attack helicopters and close support aircraft like the “Hog”.
Incidentally landed on your channel and from the bottom of my Danish heart want to thank YOU sir. Thank you and like minded Americans for supporting Ukraine, it is very important that Ukraine prevails and that we break the axis that is being forged between Russia, China, Iran and North Korea… They will provide a chilling alternative to an open free and democratic world .
The A10 was pulled from gunruns even during the Gulf War. If the A10 was in danger over Iraq, why would it be safer in Ukraine? After it was pulled from gunruns it started getting kills with missiles. Do you really need a big gun with wings to launch missiles if you have other planes?
You have to think of it this way when you give millions of dollars of equipment to Nother equipment you have to have logistics, parts, support, weapons, etc it's a life long relationship pending the life of the air craft
One of those flew over my house in Baltimore County, Maryland 2 or 3 months ago. It was supid loud for a residential area and everyone came outside to see what the noise was.
SLAVA UKRAINE As a 20 year retired Aircraft Armament Systems Specialist who was in the A-10 Guard Unit at Barksdale AFB I can tell you the A-10 was moth balled because it was TOO EFFECTIVE and the first female A-10 pilot who has also retired because the A-10 got HER home safe to her family and her unit the A-10 could do much more against tanks and artillery than they ever dreamed. The A-10 can turn around 180 degrees in a large enough hangar. I can promise from 20 years loading the A-10, F-16, F-4, and the BUFF with ALCM pylons, if the man pads got a direct hit on an A-10 it would still get home. Also you talk about parts, and you think the bone yard full of dust collecting A-10's can not supply enough parts in a war? I can assure you as a guy who made Air Force aircraft the weapons they are the f-16 is a g-force pilot killer and the A-10 is as simple to learn to fly as a Cessna per the pilots who learned to fly them. You did a whole nice little term paper on this and you didn't ask ANY A-10 pilots about their debriefs before and after flight? What Army and Air Force were you in? Go back to your community college and write a term paper on baby diapers. Sorry that's right you write media articles for RT don't you? What does RT stand for. Write your own Russian orc joke. I am just ashamed I am not in Ukraine using my Mechanical Engineering degree to build the Blue and Yellow version of the A-10 if we don't get any from this chicken $hit democracy. The whole reason NATO countries are selling their f-16's to Ukraine is to get more U.S.tear money for their new incoming F-35's. What is the f-16 called?, the lawn dart, the multi-million dollar Kirby vacuum? A-10 nick name? The TANK KILLER. You did not mention much about it is used right now against HAMAS and in Yemen against the container ship terrorists. The A-10 does not NEED AIR SUPERIORITY. IT IS AIR SUPERIORITY! SLAVA HEROYI
Good subject. The cost of each of those DU rounds, in terms of maintenance, fuel, training and ammo would be a helluva lot more than a drone with a mortar round strapped to it. . Modern war
"The A-10 does not NEED AIR SUPERIORITY. IT IS AIR SUPERIORITY!" You should have written that nonsense way earlier. By the way, comparing the Ukraine theatre with anti-terrorist operations is a big L.
I think the problem with the A-10 is that it was operated by the USAF, who considered its CAS mission in COIN operations a low priority, instead of being operated by the US Army (Air Corps), whose troops it usually supported and who consequently valued it more highly.
ukraine has su 24. which is an equivalent of a10. it's been performing fine. ukraine is using it to launch storm shadow missiles. problem is it's old, they dont have that many, and problems with lack of parts. it's performing fine
Technology has moved forward to the point where manned aircraft in the role of CAS are redundant. Even if they gain air superiority, I do not expect Ukraine to use any manned aircraft of any type in this role. Irrespective of the cost of the platforms themselves, the cost in terms of crews would be prohibitive. But apart from that, they don't need to. They have a huge variety of options for killing armour including FPV drones that are cheap and easy to use. Drones have other advantages in rapid innovation and development cycles to stay ahead of the enemy's own tech.
The short answer of course is that the A-10 is built to operate under air superiority if not supremacy. Ukraine does not have that and cannot spare the pilots.
The reason the F-16s took so long to be deployed in Ukraine wasn't pilot training, it was setting up the logistical supply lines and training the maintenance people. Why would the Ukrainians go through that again when home made drones can do the same CAS missions way cheaper?
หลายเดือนก่อน +1
Seems like a "no brainer", doesn't it ?. How many drones can be produced for the cost of training and maintaining the flight crews and pilots . More drones of every kind seems like the way forward.
Drones aren't capable of "the same CAS missions". Think of drone as a next gen ATGM. Heck, due to jamming these drones are now guided-by-wire - by very thin optical wire. It would be more accurate to compare it with artillery and especially with HIMARS MLRS. That would be similar role. The difference is that air dropped bomb have ~10 times more explosives, and jet have way more mobility and a lot less logistics issues (once again, compared to howitzers and mlrs). It also a lot less vulnerable, BUT it is very vulnerable to enemy fighter jets. Drones are not wunderwaffe, on the contrary they are last hope weapon made out of desperation due to lack of proper weapons. Sure they have some unique features, but sadly enemy is adapting.
First and foremost - The A-10 is BADASS!!! Brrrrrt! But - forgive my use of the term - there is an unfortunate truth: I recommend Ryan McBeth’s video on the subject. There’s really no longer a mission in an environment with shoulder launched - anything!
Given that the A10 just underwent a re-winging program, I have doubts as to how prompt actual retirement of the A10 will be. As others have pointed out, however, the A10 needs combat cover. Ukraine doesn't have the air-defense systems to protect them from Russian fighter craft, and Ukraine's extant air force, even with the F16s that have been sent to the country, still doesn't have the numbers to cover A10 operations. Training pilots and ground crew would take another year, at least, and maintenance would be a logistical nightmare, as nobody's actively churning out replacement parts, so any parts would have to be pulled out of storage and shipped to Ukraine. That would mean planes rapidly dropping out of combat-ready status and sitting on tarmacs, waiting for parts, with huge bullseyes on them for Russian missiles. On top of the plane, you also need to shipp tons upon tons of armaments...the Warthog is only as dangerous as its arsenal allows. We're having enough trouble sending ammunition that Ukraine's already using, it would be blindly optimistic to assume that we could keep a fleet of A10s supplied to any kind of utility level. Giving Ukraine the Warthog would be a gigantic "white elephant" of dubious utility and even more dubious longevity.
The gun on the A10 alone causes panic, look at the Bradley and what it gets away with. Russian planes don't fly into Ukraine air def systems take them down, so its a stretch to say air superior has not been reached. Its not just tanks, its troops, and an A10 is not considered a cluster bomb.
Surely the lesson of how long it takes to transfer an aircraft to Ukraine taught to us by the F16 shows that it makes no sense to spend the time, effort, manpower and money to send an outdated, ill suited, and out of production aircraft. The F16 makes sense because updated versions are still being built, thousands are in service, and it has a broad set of mission capabilities. The A10… not so much.
Oh/ Have you not considered the little, tiny, teeny fact that the Ukrainians have said no thanks? They dont want the A-10. Period. Why? 1) The airframes are all ancient, which means the maintenance costs on those airframes is through the roof. 2) A similar aircraft with a similar role already exists in the Ukrainian and Russian inventory, the Su-25 Frogfoot. Have you LOOKED at the loss rates of Su-25's in Ukraine? They are through the damned roof. Fact is the A-10 is a legacy aircraft that flew as long as it has ONLY because the USAAF has been able to maintain Air Superiority wherever the A-10 was deployed. In anything other than a regime of air superiority, and preferably air supremacy, the A-10 is so much target practice. Its simply a good way to get pilots killed. And thats the reality of Ukrainian Airspace, it is highly contested. In that kind of airspace the A-10 will do no better than the Su-25 Frogfoot. It will be relegated to throwing unguided rockets in ballistic arcs from well behind the lines because if it tries to fulfil its primary CAS role it will simply be shot down.... Thats why the Ukrainians do not WANT the damned thing.
The Air Force did a study not long ago on how to repurpose the A-10 for missions other than close air support. The A-10 is more than capable of being a cheap to operate standoff missile and decoy launcher to saturate enemy air defenses. And I bet it could also be a capable anti-drone aircraft. Station a number in the sky's over friendly population centers and plink incoming drones and slow flying cruise missiles with laser guided rockets.
We can find out under actual real conditions to know for sure. The warthog is known to have better survivability for returning the pilot home after damage.
@@Philip-hv2kc I am sure the poor bastards who have to fly them will love your cavalier attitude to their lives. People need to get it through their heads that the Ukrainians DO. NOT. WANT. THE. A-10. They have stated that in the past when asked. The reasons are simple. Low combat survivability in the actual air war in place in Ukraine, and the extremely high maintenance and operational costs of what is an ancient airframe.
@@Philip-hv2kcyeah, let’s waste years of man hours training and equipping so maybe we can see how many actually make it home to be scrapped. You should call the pentagon and demand a meeting.
To hand over the planes you have to hand over all the ground, maintenance and tech support too - something that would be pretty much impossible. That's why they hand over Soviet era planes more than Western ones. Because they already know those planes and are set up to receive them.
Russia has BVR missiles. Like, the A-10 might have some chance against modern fighters in a short range Fox-2 fight. But against Fox-3s? Yeah that's gonna be a pretty difficult fight.
If the US has *already* retired the F117 (which are kept in storage and maintained but no plans to use them), why not giving *those* to Ukraine? There is no risk of Russia gaining any Intel they don't already have, and yes, Ukraine would need a lot of training and spares to use them, but that's no different from any other plane. Even if they aren't entirely survivable and they lose them after a dozen missions each, they would do more to end the war than any other weapon in the US arsenal, and cost very little to send (or even have negative cost since the US would no longer have to keep them in storage for decades).
The SU-25's max speed is 950 km/h (590 mph), but cruises at 750km/h. The A-10's max speed is 706 km/h (439 mph), which is 34% less power than the SU-25. Yes the A-10 is an absolute unit for CAS in combined aerial forces ops, but that requires air-dominance fighters loitering above the A-10s for their security. Also the massive prevalence of modern MANDPADS is a massive danger for the A-10, as SU-25s have struggled to survive them in Ukraine on either side of the aerial conflict. It's not the right tool for the job unless NATO creates a No-Fly Zone in Ukraine, which means a full introduction of NATO air-dominance fighters fighting to clear the zone in Ukrainian skies.
The concept started in the late 60s but test trials started mid to late 70s , I first seen it in a California desert in 79 operation tazval, I was in an ADA company, one A10 actually crashed during training.
The A-10 has been "retiring" for as long as I can remember. It is still the most fearsome bird in the sky. Giving them to Ukraine would be a bad idea, they could be "on-sold".
Before watching or reading comments, I'm going to go with: 1) It's simply not survivable without the destruction of the Russian AF and many, many SEAD missions 2) That capability can be done with cheaper and simpler systems 3) That's another long, expensive logistics tail. How am I doing?
Not sure I’d describe it as beautiful (unless I’m in the military and need air support) but I would call it awesome and wish we in uk had asked for them
Also one of the most overrated aircraft. No aircraft in modern history (after WWII) has caused more friendly fire casualties for both the US and UK. But nobody likes to talk about it (except the British).
How did you manage to say Fat Annie could replace the A-10 with CAS with a straight face? Those 180 rounds in the F-35 aren't going to last more than a couple of trigger squeezes and it will also require a permanent fuel connection to the tanker since it's a thirsty turd when down in the weeds.
With the advancement and availability of shoulder launced anti-aircraft missles the A-10 is a flying duck, and likely to be shot down almost immediately - even before completing its mission. I believe that I read after the start of the Ukraining invasion in 2022 that the US estimated that if they sent A10's that they would all be shot down by day 3 or 4 of operations. Likely at least half the pilots would be captured or dead. That A-10 was a grand ground support aircraft for about 4 decades.... then technology has limited their usefullness, and now they likely cannot survive in the job they were designed to do as technology has changed. That is common for many weapon systems. We don't use or build battleships anymore either; and many other weapons have seen similar retirements. Honor the A-10 for how good it was until technology made them obsolete. But, recognize that they are obsolete and have very limited usefulness in a modern battle.
A yeah, they could lose a record number of pilots in record time. Of course we would have to find a way to force them to take them and use them since they have already said no.
It depends how the A10 is used. It was rxpected to survive in an environment that contained various weapon systems with over lapping ceilings. If its used to fire decoy drones to cover wild weasel missions. Once the larger Sam systems are destroyed it can switch back to its CAS mssion.
Can you show us a photo of an A-10 that had half its wing shot off? They’ve been around for 52 years, and during that entire time everyone says it, but no one ever shows it. I’ve seen the photos of an F-15 that lost and entire wing and landed, an F-16 that lost half a wing and flew 100 miles back home, a B-52 that lost its vertical stab, an A-10 that got an engine shot up, an F/A-18 that got both engines hit by an IR SAM and made it home, but in 52 years I’ve never seen this A-10 missing half its wing. #CircularReporting
I would think that having a reliable Ally, such as the US is now, is going to become questionable in as little as two months. The people that are going to determine the answers to those type of questions are themselves Highly Questionable.
@@FairladyS130 ain't nobody using any kind of nuclear weapons Your whole point is moot. It's a pretty smart deal to trade weapons you can use for those that you can't Duh
That gun is the most useless thing bout it. It can’t kill modern MBT’S and much cheaper systems can deal with every else. Fanboys are sad.
หลายเดือนก่อน
@@davidgill3356 Think we have all seen RPGs take out MBT"S , fairly sure that gun could do the same in the right circumstances, either way it could be a useful weapon somewhere on the battlefield .
Yeah we really need them when the Russians come over the pole with their 50’s era tanks lol. Untrained doesn’t want them, they refused them already, they are useless and can’t be replaced by far superior systems, it just takes time and money.
Because they're old, the Ukrainians would need to be trained to maintain and fly them and there susceptible to modern MANPADS? The dollar equivalent in FPV loitering munitions/drones would be much better.
I don't know if you actually read the comment section, but here goes. I was in the US Army from 1977 to 1988 initially in the 1/75th Rgr Bn and then various airborne units. I finished out in the Rgr Dept as a RI. An injury took me out of the fight and the service. This little bio was to let you know that my entire time in was dedicated to fight against the Soviet threat, mainly the one anticipated in Europe and the horde flowing thru The Fulda Gap. The idea that A-10's could not operate in a non-permissive arena is a little skewed. At the point where T-62's, BMP's and other armored vehicles were pouring into Poland, the A-10 would have been deployed to counter the threat as they were designed to do. This would have been done without US air superiority. They would have taken losses, but they would have done their initial counter strikes and slowed the break thru.
They were expecting considerable losses of A-10s even then. Remember we were concerned that an overwhelming Soviet attack could result in us going nuclear, so throwing everything at them "hell for leather" to hopefully avoid the need to escalate to Pershing TBMs on Polish and CZ soil made perfect sense. That was why the system was designed as it was, with manual trim tabs on the ailerons (you can't manually operate the full size flaps) to help it limp back to friendly lines so at least the pilot could eject over friendly territory, hopefully.
Hardly the mission it would be doing in Ukraine today. The front is static and man pads are everywhere.
Please stop sending every defense capability we have to Ukraine, This is stupid. Captured US weapons are on display in Red Square. Design details are being determined now and shared with everyone who hates us. Stop already, Americans have spent decades developing this equipment, it was a lot of hard work and even though some of this stuff is old, they are still the best. Every time we just give this stuff away we do damage to ourselves
Thank you for the freedom that I enjoy and that your service provided.
They took losses in Iraq. Russia is tougher
Great video, and I know this is a pretty beaten hop if by now, but…
I (a former A-10 squadron member) think real opportunities are being missed in online discussions and by the military regarding The A-10, particularly in Ukraine but elsewhere as well. Whether or not future aircraft might provide better options, right now, the A-10 has some potentially untapped uses-no gun, SDB’s or maverick’s required.
The four inboard pylons of the A-10 can currently carry sixteen SDB’s. These could be swapped with switchblade 300’s or 600’s, with minimal effort. Due to the light weight of these weapons, all ten pylons (not counting the central 600 gallon drop tank mount or the wingtip AIM ones) could swapped out with up to forty switchblade 600’s (four per pylon) or (if the mounts were designed), one-hundred and sixty switchblade 300’s (sixteen per pylon).
Removal of the GaU-8 could allow for an internal fuel store, drone control suite, EW/ECM or any other useful systems. Placing ARM missiles on two of the pylons could also counter/deter any vehicle mounted, radar SA systems and if the central pylon were modified could add a third ARM missile, electronic, com, camera, package, etc.
SBD’s could also be included in this mix. Essentially, variable loading options per wing pylon could be: 16x300, 4x600, 4xSDB Mounting Starlink transmitters onboard the A-10 could allow each of these to be launched and directed by ground operators, freeing the pilot to fly.
The up to forty minute loiter (slightly more perhaps if air launched) of the 600’s, alleviates the need for the A-10 to loiter near the frontline. If the SDB’s (GBU-39’s) could interchanged with the variants (current and future) of the British SPEAR munition-a size equivalent of the GBU-39, with multi sensor guidance, rocket boosted range and speed and variable payloads including EW and ARM-then the capabilities soar.
Ukraine would have to make these adaptations happen but it would not require airframe redesigns (excepting, perhaps, messing with the GaU-8. The U.S. would need the typical planning committee and development stretches pushing it into the future, but Ukraine could push it.
For a nation mounting frontline, unguided rocket attacks with Mil-8’s, this would be a far better choice. If adapted with the offensive changes I have suggested, a low altitude dash-in/loiter-out drone swarm launcher that can land a few miles away on a dirt field might be a real plus.
I know it isn’t going to happen, but it sure could.
Some interesting thoughts… but I thought the SDB guidance package was too easy to spoof?
Sorry, but no US pilot has ever flown an A-10 in contested airspace but only in airspace where the ground based anti air has been thoroughly suppressed, and hostile air assets are essentially non existent.
A-10's will last about as long in Ukraine as the Su-25's did. Which is to say, not very. Which is why Ukraine has specifically stated IT DOES NOT WANT A-10's. It stated that years ago. They DO NOT WANT THEM......
What about that statement can people not get through their heads? The Ukrainians do not want the A-10 for multiple reasons, and their low survivability in contested airspace is only one of those reasons.
For example, has the high maintenance cost of those old airframes (all of them are over 25 years old now) escaped you? The LAST thing the Ukrainians need is a probably niche at best combat platform that costs an arm and a leg to keep flying for very little actual result.
The only reason the A-10 has been able to operate as long as it has is because 1) the USAAF has always been able to gain and maintain at minimum the air superiority required for the A-10 to operate effectively. And 2) the US is one of the few places in the world that could afford to keep an ancient, expensive to maintain niche use aircraft in service.
Ukraine can do NEITHER of those things. Which is why they do not want the A-10.
Yes these 50 year old aircraft could become drone trucks. OTOH pretty much any aircrsft can be adapted to the drone truck role without needing to maintain old airframes with capability not needed.
The a-10 is done ffs
@@alganhar1if you think the A10 is expensive to operate you are sadly mistaken-its one of the cheapest per flight hour.
The reason they don't want the A10 is they have farmers and tractors and a bradley or two.
Sounds a lot better than what they don't have. A-10s and decommissioned choppers would be the perfect combination with drones since we're not giving them enough tanks. Maybe the maintenance and training would be too time-consuming.
I wondered when the war started and all those Russian tanks were all in convoy why Ukraine didn't ask for the A10, of course I didn't think about pilots not being able to fly them straight away, well explained as usual Wes. Slava Ukraini. 💙💛
Ukraine cant win this war so it doesn't matter
@@lewisgreenway5065 They didn’t want them, they never would have survived long enough to attack they convoys.
@@davidgill3356 I can't agree but the point is mute there were no A10s in Ukraine with trained pilots.
@@lewisgreenway5065 Might be moot even. Seems like the convoys got chewed up pretty good without and obsolete death trap involved.
@@davidgill3356 They pretty much had their own Highway Of Death Of Wheel Bearings. Cause maintenance was fudged in corupt Russia.
The A10 can only survived in an environment with complete air superiority.
Yes, and complete air superiority also means the other guys don't have shoulder launched AA missile systems. But these days, everyone has these in abundance making close air support a suicide mission.
In the real world the A-10 was not meant to survive the inter-German border combat zone of WWIII. It was meant to do a maximum of damage before being shot down or destroyed on the apron. Pilots of the time would invoke the excellent nature of the ejection seat. Transferring them Ukraine would put them into the action environment they were designed for. If the A-10's ended their life operating deep in the former Soviet Union in the fight to prevent the reformation of the USSR the designers would rest well in their graves.
talking from your bed
The Russians operate the equivalent of the A10 - the SU25 "Frogfoot" - in their "SMO", as do the Ukraines I believe. Sure, they're taking losses from manpads, but, evidently the combatants consider the SU25 has a role to play in this conflict and thus, must consider the current rate of losses - in aircraft and pilots - as acceptable for the time being. The US could give the Ukrainians the A10, to make up the loss of SU25s, but would Ukraine have sufficient pilots to fly them and could they spare them from frontline operations whilst they were trained to operate the A10?
Not totally true man…not true at all actually.
Honestly, the US has hundreds of recently decommissioned Huey Super Cobras just sitting in the desert. They would probably be much more effective and faster training new chopper pilots than the more expensive program of maintaining a fleet of A-10's. Add to the fact that Ukraine is a high aerial threat environment. The Huey's can at least fly very low and slow when needed to avoid getting shot down.
ukraine needs Harrier Jets rather than a10
harrier can be positioned near the frontline and can sprung up into action quickly
Until AI srarted flying
@@Condor1970
In that combat environment they would be more vulnerable than the A-10. The Ukrainians are doing great with their drones and anti armor weapons.
Training helicopter pilots, for a warzone no less, takes less training than A-10 pilots?
@@tobiasrietveld3819 Well, I'm not going to say whether it's faster or not. I do know that Army helicopter school is total about 18 months from trainee to a pilot. A-10 school is previously qualified pilots then take additional 6 months or so to train on just the A-10. So, how long to become a pilot in the first place, I don't know. Also, helicopter pilots are often warrant officers as well, requiring less prior collegiate education. My only real point was that maintaining a fleet of Cobras is undoubtedly cheaper than the A-10's. Also, helicopters are something Ukraine probably would need and be able to use more effectively in larger numbers than a dozen or so A-10's. Ukraine does have a number of older Hind helicopters, but I would be pretty confident in saying Super Cobras would be a notable step up.
Why not? Manpads and similar anti-aircraft missiles? Training? Maintenance?
All those things and the A-10 has no in built radar so in most cases it's a sitting duck.
@@raptor1672 An armored duck, but still a duck.
Ukraine has trained Pilots and Maintenance personnel. What is the next excuse
@@pro-libertatibus it have armor only around pilot, all other plane just paper
First of all, Ukraine is fighting mostly trench warfare, where both sides have plenty of anti air systems close by. Secondly setting a logistics for spare parts, service and training would be very complicated and expensive as this plane is not as spread across the world as F-16. So the cost to benefit would be absolutely terrible, as these planes would get blown out of the sky in large numbers very fast.
They don't want it. It was offered to Ukraine last year by the US. They declined the offer. CAS dedicated aircraft has proven a flying coffin in near peer combat. Ukraine has fewer pilots than aircraft and it can't afford to have them killed in A-10s. The SU-25 (russian A-10 equivalent) has the highest casualty rate of any aircraft for both sides. Ukraine mostly stopped using theirs as the casualty rate was too high compared to their MIGs. They simply cannot operate in a theater where air superiority hasn't been achieved, not without massive casualties (which is exactly what happened to both Russian and UA su-25s). The A-10 is fine when you're fighting terrorists with extremely poor equipment, but suicidal vs a well armed enemy with modern AA / SAM and ESPECIALLY modern Manpads.
It was designed to engage Russian armour
at short notice but with predicted extremely high
atriton rates so not suited for a long fight in
contested air space.
Giving OLD, already purchased, technologies doesn’t funnel $ back to companies that sell NEW weapons.
I'd amend that to 'OLD, already purchased, dead-end programmes'.
If there was a proper 1:1 replacement for the A-10 even in the conceptual stages, I'd bet they'd be dumping Warthogs onto Ozerne AB
just to lubricate budget line-item approval for said 1:1 replacement. As it is, it seems like closest-analogue Eagle EX is already assured of orders anyway.
I'd argue that helping Ukraine achieve victory by donating them old equipment is a sure fire way of creating a potent customer for new western military technology in the very near future.
That is the answer - Elites do NOT want the WAR to be over
@@AirCicilia Achieve victory by giving them a useless plane they have already refused?
@davidgill3356 Oh, A10s were actually offered to the Ukrainians and they refused? I must have totally missed that in all the reports I've been following from the beginning of that conflict. Somehow I only caught the news about Australian junk F18s being offered and refused in the past...
I heard the Ukrainians don't want the A-10.
The A10 is more a symbol of air power, not really something effective. Even in Desert storm; the majority of tank or other ground kills were not from A10's, but F111's with maverick missiles.
In fact, a britisch SAS unit in it's tank was misstakely identified as a disguised enemy tank, and the A10 took 2 runs with it's cannon at it. Everybody was fine, and the tank drove on home.
If you’re going to comment at least know your facts….. the F-111’s flew at altitude and dropped laser guided bombs. They did not use maverick missiles. They would never get away with that in Ukraine. We lose an aircraft and everyone loses their mind. We lose two Bradley’s and we lose close to 20 soldiers and it’s “oh well.” A-10’s could operate in lower threat areas, especially to exploit break-throughs that don’t have anti-aircraft capabilities and/or troops are in serious trouble. Ukraine isn’t getting A-10’s but if we were in that war they would certainly be used.
Former USAF here, with the privilege of seeing these still fly daily around our city.
To imply the aircraft (especially the 30mm system) is ineffective is disingenuous at best. During Desert storm, the platform took out more than 900 tanks/armored vehicles using a combination of the gun, missile and bombs. Not to mention two confirmed helicopter kills with the gun.
Yes, it requires additional fighters to clear higher airspace however that was already understood way back during its development as a close air support platform.
Ukraine lacks the concept of combined arms. Some Abrams here, some Leopards there, a few F-16, etc. are not going to cut it on their own.
A-10 was developed as a somewhat expendable tank killer during the Cold War. In it's current role it requires largely uncontested airspace to do its mission. Ukraine is definitely contested and you'd be using up a lot of planes, but more importantly, pilots.
The Ukrainians are afraid to send their fighters out just to get shot down by the Russian air defenses. We hear NOTHING about those "game changer" F-16 that were given to Ukraine a few months back. Because the are NOT game changers.
Might still be useful in training and taking down drones and cruise missiles within controlled airspace. Lots of A-10s retiring around the world.
I read somewhere that in a hot war vs the Soviets, the US expected A-10 casualties to be high but acceptable due to the fact the US had a numerous supply of both airframes and pilots to absorb these losses somewhat. Ukraine simply wouldn't have that luxury as training would be long and limited to a handful of pilots and I would expect the number of airframes given to be quite low. Any A-10's wouldn't be used to their full effectiveness and would find themselves relegated to lobbing bombs/rockets much like the SU-25 is at which point you might as well purely use the SU-25 to simplify maintenance as supporting the A-10 would become a drain on resources for little benefit.
The Ucranians would probably transform them in remote drones with only 1 pilot flying a squadron
They have pilots and maintenance personal already trained
I saw the A10 in action in Iraq and it is awesome but like mentioned before, the A10 was not built to survive in contested airspace
Sad but to true. I agree Happy ThanksGiving
Best GI Joe toy I ever got as a kid!
And watching this explained so much!
Like how could replace parts with battle damaged versions!
Just sold what remained of mine a few months ago 😫
You had me when you talked about Cobra and the associated toys. 80's toys were glorious.
The A10 warthog has recently gone through it's 6th upgrade since it's first model over 40 years ago. It's more deadly, efficient and modernized with new capabilities that still make it a very valuable part of both conventional and modern warfare, for the 21st century. The A10 worthog isn't going anywhere!
This has been already analyzed and talked about. The A10 won't make a difference in Ukraine. Is almost entirely useless, unless Ukraine achieves air superiority, it is almost useless, as much as its Soviet made counterpart, the Su 25.
The only opportunity where it could've been used, was at the beginning of the invasion when the Russians were stuck in a large convoy. The war has changed and evolved.
The A10 has a very expensive operation cost. The 30 MM cannon is very complicated and needs near constant maintenance.
There is another thing to consider.
The age of the airframes and the fact they are out of production does not just mean its more difficult to get parts, but parts are going to break more often. The A-10's left are old, really old, and that means the cost to keep them maintained, even if parts were in ready supply, is also going to be very high.
And its not just monetary costs I am talking about, its time costs. Just how many man hours are going to be required to keep those old birds flying? Sharply increasing maintenance costs is one of the reasons the USAAF wants to retire them!
Lastly the war in Ukraine is NOT the one the A-10 was designed for. It LOOKS like the one it was designed for but its most certainly not. Why? Well most of the modern missile systems used by the Russians and Ukrainians simply did not exist when the aircraft was designed. The A-10 was designed for a completely different threat environment to the one faced by modern CAS aircraft in a peer on peer war. Its WHY the USAAF wants to shift to the F-35 in that role, because its low radar visibility means it can at least survive in a CAS environment on a modern battlefield without first requiring Air Supremacy!
You may have doubts about whether the F-35 can fulfil a CAS role, and maybe they are justified to some extent, but the fact remains the F-35 is the best current option until a new dedicated CAS aircraft can be designed and brought into service, one designed to deal with modern or near future threat environments.
Absolutely No. Bad idea.
The A-10 would not survive in the skies over Ukraine. It can only operate in a permissive environment, like no enemy Ground to air missiles and fighter opposition.
Give the Ukrainians the option. Give the Ukrainians an honest assessment of the risks and the challenges, and they can decide if the benefits are worth the effort.
Highly entertaining,and educational. You make learning easy and fun,from a 78 yr. old life long civilian.thanks, Wes!
We see TONS of videos of Ukrainian helicopters lobbing rockets. Couldn’t an A10 be used the same way? Are they more susceptible to AA than a Hind?
Yes, there seems to be a general consensus here that A10's wouldn't survive in Ukraine but very little real examination of what they would actually face there compared with what every other arm faces on a daily basis. For a start infantry regularly face prolonged artillery bombardments.
you could use a cropduster if you're just lobbng rockets.
oh look...the OA-1K sky warden is still in production..
@@FairladyS130 They would actually face modern manpads and mobile AA batteries. WTF does infantry have to do with it? The lack of air superiority and inability to avoid air defenses make it a sitting duck.
@@davidgill3356 I assume that in operation they would be given a specified target so fast and low in and out. That's what the helios do but much slower. They would be gone before any AA could be reasonably effective.
It’s not the scarce ruzzian aircraft that would be the problem but the potential abundance of manpads that limits the use of attack helicopters and close support aircraft like the “Hog”.
Incidentally landed on your channel and from the bottom of my Danish heart want to thank YOU sir. Thank you and like minded Americans for supporting Ukraine, it is very important that Ukraine prevails and that we break the axis that is being forged between Russia, China, Iran and North Korea… They will provide a chilling alternative to an open free and democratic world .
The A10 was pulled from gunruns even during the Gulf War. If the A10 was in danger over Iraq, why would it be safer in Ukraine?
After it was pulled from gunruns it started getting kills with missiles. Do you really need a big gun with wings to launch missiles if you have other planes?
A10 training takes time as well, but i agree with the video
You have to think of it this way when you give millions of dollars of equipment to Nother equipment you have to have logistics, parts, support, weapons, etc it's a life long relationship pending the life of the air craft
Simple. No air superiority that A-10 needs to be effective.
One of those flew over my house in Baltimore County, Maryland 2 or 3 months ago. It was supid loud for a residential area and everyone came outside to see what the noise was.
Not as simple, it would require the support elements and ground crews
SLAVA UKRAINE As a 20 year retired Aircraft Armament Systems Specialist who was in the A-10 Guard Unit at Barksdale AFB I can tell you the A-10 was moth balled because it was TOO EFFECTIVE and the first female A-10 pilot who has also retired because the A-10 got HER home safe to her family and her unit the A-10 could do much more against tanks and artillery than they ever dreamed. The A-10 can turn around 180 degrees in a large enough hangar. I can promise from 20 years loading the A-10, F-16, F-4, and the BUFF with ALCM pylons, if the man pads got a direct hit on an A-10 it would still get home. Also you talk about parts, and you think the bone yard full of dust collecting A-10's can not supply enough parts in a war? I can assure you as a guy who made Air Force aircraft the weapons they are the f-16 is a g-force pilot killer and the A-10 is as simple to learn to fly as a Cessna per the pilots who learned to fly them. You did a whole nice little term paper on this and you didn't ask ANY A-10 pilots about their debriefs before and after flight? What Army and Air Force were you in? Go back to your community college and write a term paper on baby diapers. Sorry that's right you write media articles for RT don't you? What does RT stand for. Write your own Russian orc joke. I am just ashamed I am not in Ukraine using my Mechanical Engineering degree to build the Blue and Yellow version of the A-10 if we don't get any from this chicken $hit democracy.
The whole reason NATO countries are selling their f-16's to Ukraine is to get more U.S.tear money for their new incoming F-35's. What is the f-16 called?, the lawn dart, the multi-million dollar Kirby vacuum? A-10 nick name? The TANK KILLER. You did not mention much about it is used right now against HAMAS and in Yemen against the container ship terrorists.
The A-10 does not NEED AIR SUPERIORITY. IT IS AIR SUPERIORITY! SLAVA HEROYI
Not really.
Good subject. The cost of each of those DU rounds, in terms of maintenance, fuel, training and ammo would be a helluva lot more than a drone with a mortar round strapped to it. . Modern war
"The A-10 does not NEED AIR SUPERIORITY. IT IS AIR SUPERIORITY!" You should have written that nonsense way earlier. By the way, comparing the Ukraine theatre with anti-terrorist operations is a big L.
@@toby9999 Why?
JUST DAMNED IDIOT POLITIEK...!
TLDR A-10 will never do well in contested airspace.
I think the problem with the A-10 is that it was operated by the USAF, who considered its CAS mission in COIN operations a low priority, instead of being operated by the US Army (Air Corps), whose troops it usually supported and who consequently valued it more highly.
The su25 is the Russian version of the a10 and it hasn't performed as well as expected.
ukraine has su 24. which is an equivalent of a10. it's been performing fine. ukraine is using it to launch storm shadow missiles. problem is it's old, they dont have that many, and problems with lack of parts. it's performing fine
Technology has moved forward to the point where manned aircraft in the role of CAS are redundant.
Even if they gain air superiority, I do not expect Ukraine to use any manned aircraft of any type in this role. Irrespective of the cost of the platforms themselves, the cost in terms of crews would be prohibitive. But apart from that, they don't need to. They have a huge variety of options for killing armour including FPV drones that are cheap and easy to use. Drones have other advantages in rapid innovation and development cycles to stay ahead of the enemy's own tech.
The short answer of course is that the A-10 is built to operate under air superiority if not supremacy. Ukraine does not have that and cannot spare the pilots.
The reason the F-16s took so long to be deployed in Ukraine wasn't pilot training, it was setting up the logistical supply lines and training the maintenance people. Why would the Ukrainians go through that again when home made drones can do the same CAS missions way cheaper?
Seems like a "no brainer", doesn't it ?. How many drones can be produced for the cost of training and maintaining the flight crews and pilots . More drones of every kind seems like the way forward.
Drones aren't capable of "the same CAS missions". Think of drone as a next gen ATGM. Heck, due to jamming these drones are now guided-by-wire - by very thin optical wire.
It would be more accurate to compare it with artillery and especially with HIMARS MLRS. That would be similar role.
The difference is that air dropped bomb have ~10 times more explosives, and jet have way more mobility and a lot less logistics issues (once again, compared to howitzers and mlrs). It also a lot less vulnerable, BUT it is very vulnerable to enemy fighter jets.
Drones are not wunderwaffe, on the contrary they are last hope weapon made out of desperation due to lack of proper weapons. Sure they have some unique features, but sadly enemy is adapting.
First and foremost - The A-10 is BADASS!!!
Brrrrrt!
But - forgive my use of the term - there is an unfortunate truth:
I recommend Ryan McBeth’s video on the subject.
There’s really no longer a mission in an environment with shoulder launched - anything!
Using a10 require absolute air control
Thanx Wes. The A10 is so bad-ass! “Warm Kerry Gold butter.”
Thank you for educating this arm-chair General sitting at home eating a slice of pizza.
after the Stuka....lol...with that siren, the targets would be pissing themselves before croacking.....lol
Given that the A10 just underwent a re-winging program, I have doubts as to how prompt actual retirement of the A10 will be.
As others have pointed out, however, the A10 needs combat cover. Ukraine doesn't have the air-defense systems to protect them from Russian fighter craft, and Ukraine's extant air force, even with the F16s that have been sent to the country, still doesn't have the numbers to cover A10 operations. Training pilots and ground crew would take another year, at least, and maintenance would be a logistical nightmare, as nobody's actively churning out replacement parts, so any parts would have to be pulled out of storage and shipped to Ukraine. That would mean planes rapidly dropping out of combat-ready status and sitting on tarmacs, waiting for parts, with huge bullseyes on them for Russian missiles. On top of the plane, you also need to shipp tons upon tons of armaments...the Warthog is only as dangerous as its arsenal allows. We're having enough trouble sending ammunition that Ukraine's already using, it would be blindly optimistic to assume that we could keep a fleet of A10s supplied to any kind of utility level.
Giving Ukraine the Warthog would be a gigantic "white elephant" of dubious utility and even more dubious longevity.
The gun on the A10 alone causes panic, look at the Bradley and what it gets away with. Russian planes don't fly into Ukraine air def systems take them down, so its a stretch to say air superior has not been reached. Its not just tanks, its troops, and an A10 is not considered a cluster bomb.
I wonder if it would make a good remote-controlled drone mother ship.
Surely the lesson of how long it takes to transfer an aircraft to Ukraine taught to us by the F16 shows that it makes no sense to spend the time, effort, manpower and money to send an outdated, ill suited, and out of production aircraft. The F16 makes sense because updated versions are still being built, thousands are in service, and it has a broad set of mission capabilities. The A10… not so much.
Not only does the A10 need full air superiority to operate, it's notorious for being difficult to maintain.
I've been advocating this, and waiting on this, for over a year now.... WE NEED TO DO THIS!
Oh/ Have you not considered the little, tiny, teeny fact that the Ukrainians have said no thanks? They dont want the A-10. Period.
Why?
1) The airframes are all ancient, which means the maintenance costs on those airframes is through the roof.
2) A similar aircraft with a similar role already exists in the Ukrainian and Russian inventory, the Su-25 Frogfoot. Have you LOOKED at the loss rates of Su-25's in Ukraine? They are through the damned roof.
Fact is the A-10 is a legacy aircraft that flew as long as it has ONLY because the USAAF has been able to maintain Air Superiority wherever the A-10 was deployed. In anything other than a regime of air superiority, and preferably air supremacy, the A-10 is so much target practice. Its simply a good way to get pilots killed.
And thats the reality of Ukrainian Airspace, it is highly contested. In that kind of airspace the A-10 will do no better than the Su-25 Frogfoot. It will be relegated to throwing unguided rockets in ballistic arcs from well behind the lines because if it tries to fulfil its primary CAS role it will simply be shot down....
Thats why the Ukrainians do not WANT the damned thing.
Advocating lol. Who is hanging on your opinion exactly? Ukraine doesn’t want them, they are useless.
The Air Force did a study not long ago on how to repurpose the A-10 for missions other than close air support. The A-10 is more than capable of being a cheap to operate standoff missile and decoy launcher to saturate enemy air defenses. And I bet it could also be a capable anti-drone aircraft. Station a number in the sky's over friendly population centers and plink incoming drones and slow flying cruise missiles with laser guided rockets.
We tend to like the A10, they are very effective on defenseless armies. Not going to last very long in the airspace that Russia controls
What they wanted and what they needed was long range missiles yet the US wouldn't allow them to be used.
Truly bizarre policy .
The warthogs would fall out of the sky at all most the same rate as the su25.. Times has changed
Drones baby!!!
We can find out under actual real conditions to know for sure. The warthog is known to have better survivability for returning the pilot home after damage.
@@Philip-hv2kcSo? It won’t fly again after that. The exact same problem with the 60 Frogfoots lost over the last three years.😊
@@Philip-hv2kc I am sure the poor bastards who have to fly them will love your cavalier attitude to their lives.
People need to get it through their heads that the Ukrainians DO. NOT. WANT. THE. A-10. They have stated that in the past when asked.
The reasons are simple. Low combat survivability in the actual air war in place in Ukraine, and the extremely high maintenance and operational costs of what is an ancient airframe.
@@Philip-hv2kcyeah, let’s waste years of man hours training and equipping so maybe we can see how many actually make it home to be scrapped. You should call the pentagon and demand a meeting.
To hand over the planes you have to hand over all the ground, maintenance and tech support too - something that would be pretty much impossible. That's why they hand over Soviet era planes more than Western ones. Because they already know those planes and are set up to receive them.
Awesome as usual Wes. Sorry can’t help you with the rattler. 🙁All the best to you and family. Take care.😃
Because they will drop like flies
Maybe if converted to drones and with simplified or striped down capabilities to keep it flying?
Didn’t they just update the warthog? Like a big update to get more mileage out of it?
I think the "Have" would work out pretty well!
Russia has BVR missiles.
Like, the A-10 might have some chance against modern fighters in a short range Fox-2 fight. But against Fox-3s? Yeah that's gonna be a pretty difficult fight.
If the US has *already* retired the F117 (which are kept in storage and maintained but no plans to use them), why not giving *those* to Ukraine?
There is no risk of Russia gaining any Intel they don't already have, and yes, Ukraine would need a lot of training and spares to use them, but that's no different from any other plane. Even if they aren't entirely survivable and they lose them after a dozen missions each, they would do more to end the war than any other weapon in the US arsenal, and cost very little to send (or even have negative cost since the US would no longer have to keep them in storage for decades).
10% for the big guy
Great presentation, you made a subscriber outta me!
The SU-25's max speed is 950 km/h (590 mph), but cruises at 750km/h. The A-10's max speed is 706 km/h (439 mph), which is 34% less power than the SU-25. Yes the A-10 is an absolute unit for CAS in combined aerial forces ops, but that requires air-dominance fighters loitering above the A-10s for their security. Also the massive prevalence of modern MANDPADS is a massive danger for the A-10, as SU-25s have struggled to survive them in Ukraine on either side of the aerial conflict. It's not the right tool for the job unless NATO creates a No-Fly Zone in Ukraine, which means a full introduction of NATO air-dominance fighters fighting to clear the zone in Ukrainian skies.
The concept started in the late 60s but test trials started mid to late 70s , I first seen it in a California desert in 79 operation tazval, I was in an ADA company, one A10 actually crashed during training.
because Ukraine does not have air superiority. Both sides do not do close air support of ground assets due to air defense.
both sides barely have an airforce
The A-10 has been "retiring" for as long as I can remember. It is still the most fearsome bird in the sky. Giving them to Ukraine would be a bad idea, they could be "on-sold".
The A-10 is a death trap. Antique.
I came to say..... F**k No!
Not retiring it. They are improving it!!!
Before watching or reading comments, I'm going to go with:
1) It's simply not survivable without the destruction of the Russian AF and many, many SEAD missions
2) That capability can be done with cheaper and simpler systems
3) That's another long, expensive logistics tail.
How am I doing?
The A10 is the most beautiful aircraft ever made.
Not sure I’d describe it as beautiful (unless I’m in the military and need air support) but I would call it awesome and wish we in uk had asked for them
Also one of the most overrated aircraft. No aircraft in modern history (after WWII) has caused more friendly fire casualties for both the US and UK. But nobody likes to talk about it (except the British).
Ahh Saab Dragen ;)😎😎😎
1:24 - Ummm, nope. That is very much modeled after the 'MiG-31' that Clint Eastwood stole in the movie "Firefox".
How did you manage to say Fat Annie could replace the A-10 with CAS with a straight face? Those 180 rounds in the F-35 aren't going to last more than a couple of trigger squeezes and it will also require a permanent fuel connection to the tanker since it's a thirsty turd when down in the weeds.
With the advancement and availability of shoulder launced anti-aircraft missles the A-10 is a flying duck, and likely to be shot down almost immediately - even before completing its mission. I believe that I read after the start of the Ukraining invasion in 2022 that the US estimated that if they sent A10's that they would all be shot down by day 3 or 4 of operations. Likely at least half the pilots would be captured or dead.
That A-10 was a grand ground support aircraft for about 4 decades.... then technology has limited their usefullness, and now they likely cannot survive in the job they were designed to do as technology has changed.
That is common for many weapon systems. We don't use or build battleships anymore either; and many other weapons have seen similar retirements.
Honor the A-10 for how good it was until technology made them obsolete. But, recognize that they are obsolete and have very limited usefulness in a modern battle.
This could be a true gamechanger for Ukraine!!
A yeah, they could lose a record number of pilots in record time. Of course we would have to find a way to force them to take them and use them since they have already said no.
The US doesnt even give them F-16s why would they do any other aircraft?
Especially ones they specifically said they don’t want.
@@davidgill3356 beggars cant be choosers
It depends how the A10 is used. It was rxpected to survive in an environment that contained various weapon systems with over lapping ceilings. If its used to fire decoy drones to cover wild weasel missions. Once the larger Sam systems are destroyed it can switch back to its CAS mssion.
Once the A-10 is out of the US, there is no system to suppott it. Troops need time to learn how to operate and maintain it,
Didn't the U.S. also have air superiority in Vietnam, i.e. much before Desert Storm?
Nighthawk was *also* modeled after the Firefox. (from the movie of the same name)
:)
As of December 2024 Ukraine has ruled out the Swedish plane, to consolidate maintenance and logistics for the f-16.
Can you show us a photo of an A-10 that had half its wing shot off? They’ve been around for 52 years, and during that entire time everyone says it, but no one ever shows it. I’ve seen the photos of an F-15 that lost and entire wing and landed, an F-16 that lost half a wing and flew 100 miles back home, a B-52 that lost its vertical stab, an A-10 that got an engine shot up, an F/A-18 that got both engines hit by an IR SAM and made it home, but in 52 years I’ve never seen this A-10 missing half its wing. #CircularReporting
Ok new subscriber here enjoy the video but .Sounds like you need to nerd out and do some GI Joe video think it would be good
I would think that having a reliable Ally, such as the US is now, is going to become questionable in as little as two months.
The people that are going to determine the answers to those type of questions are themselves Highly Questionable.
When has the USA ever been a 'reliable' ally? Deadly reliable maybe, you won't survive its 'friendship'.
@breakbollocks9164 well for openers, without a United States of America alliance with Ukraine, Ukraine would now be Russia.
@@reubenj.cogburn8546 That 'alliance' was a condition of Ukraine giving up it's USSR nukes. Look where they are now as a result of that 'alliance'.
@@FairladyS130 ain't nobody using any kind of nuclear weapons
Your whole point is moot.
It's a pretty smart deal to trade weapons you can use for those that you can't
Duh
@@reubenj.cogburn8546 The deterrence factor is not moot, duh.
I´m fascinated about A-10 (like Me 262), but I´m not sure it works in modern warfare.
Can the A-10 out perform the modern drones, without any pilot to worry about. Would be great if they could find a way to get that gun into the game .
That gun is the most useless thing bout it. It can’t kill modern MBT’S and much cheaper systems can deal with every else. Fanboys are sad.
@@davidgill3356 Think we have all seen RPGs take out MBT"S , fairly sure that gun could do the same in the right circumstances, either way it could be a useful weapon somewhere on the battlefield .
No way in hell. Nothing can replace the A-10. We need them with the National Guard at home.
Yeah we really need them when the Russians come over the pole with their 50’s era tanks lol. Untrained doesn’t want them, they refused them already, they are useless and can’t be replaced by far superior systems, it just takes time and money.
I'll give you double what Wes offers for the Rattler! oh, and another great video Wes.
small cheap drones have replaced a-10´s role as close air support.
Because they're old, the Ukrainians would need to be trained to maintain and fly them and there susceptible to modern MANPADS? The dollar equivalent in FPV loitering munitions/drones would be much better.
Good stuff, thanks.
Why not give it ???!!! An awesome idea !!!
It’s a horrible idea, the Ukrainians thought so when they turned it down.
Because… it’s.. kinda like, our A-10 fkn warthog freedom dispenser ? 😂